Major glitch in justice system exposed by different verdicts
Two weeks ago, Judge Bart Stanley ruled against local teacher Teresa Spivey in civil court. Stanley determined there was enough evidence to hold Spivey responsible for some $25,000 in damages for poking a 7-year-old girl with pins.
The outcome of the civil lawsuit is completely different than the criminal case where Spivey was found not guilty of poking the child with pins. The end result is two trials and two verdicts, including one which indicates Spivey is guilty and obligates her to pay a substantial sum of money.
Such conflicting legal verdicts have happened before, with O.J. Simpson perhaps the most famous person to be found not guilty in criminal court but guilty in civil court.
Without taking a side in the Spivey case, it’s clear our legal system needs to tighten this significant loophole. There should not be two separate standards for determining guilt.
In a criminal case, guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. This means a judge, or a jury, must be almost completely convinced a person is guilty before rendering such a ruling.
Civil court is entirely different. Proof is not needed beyond a reasonable doubt. Only a preponderance, or majority, of proof is required. This means a judge or jury leaning slightly toward a guilty verdict, say 51 percent, is entitled to render such a decision.
This should no longer be acceptable – especially in this day when frivolous lawsuits are filed with regularity. If there isn’t enough evidence to find a person guilty in criminal court, there shouldn’t be enough to find them guilty in civil court. It’s that simple.
Having two separate standards does nothing to convey a system of justice. It portrays a system that’s badly out of whack.
It could be argued that jail time isn’t involved with civil cases and that’s why the standards are lowered. But no matter the courtroom, reputations are always on the line and a guilty verdict in one court unfairly gives the impression of a guilty verdict in the other.
If guilt must be determined beyond reasonable doubt to hand out jail time, it should also be determined beyond reasonable doubt to forever tarnish someone’s reputation.